Recently I read through Titus in my morning meetings with the Lord. As we met together, the Lord gave me fresh appreciation for the letter. Perhaps it’s owing to our upcoming move to DC to plant a church in what some think is a tough community. But as I read the letter, I saw more clearly the Cretan context into which the Lord sent Titus. It’s a context in which many Christians around the world labor, and a context many other Christians needlessly avoid.

When we are constantly straining to “see through” the arguments of our neighbors, we run the risk of never actually seeing them. If we’re constantly tuning our ears to the background hum of power-plays and manipulation, we’ll soon find we’re deaf to anything else. If we’re only ever listening to unmask, we’re never actually listening to understand.

Christians who affirm the normative, traditional, historical, orthodox view of the Bible’s teaching on various sins are always accused of being divisive when in sticking to their affirmations they must disassociate with those who don’t.

It’s a disingenuous claim, however, since unity could have been preserved so long as the agreement did. But when one changes a mind on such matters the division has begun with them (1 Corinthians 1:10), not the one who says, “Ah, you’ve changed the rules; you’ve changed the agreement.” It would be like the adulterer calling after his wife as she’s walking out the door in anger and shame that she’s being divisive.

Piper’s response to this question gave me a fair bit to think about. In the video, Piper says:

Here’s the way I answer questions like that (and I ask them to myself all the time): It depends on the degree and nature of the division compared with the degree of seriousness to the theology mistaken.

I’m sad that we’re not all on the same page eschatologically. I wish Sam Storms and I were on the same page. I wish Doug Wilson and I were on the same page. And we’re not, and that’s sad.

It doesn’t cause me too many tears at that level. But when I see somebody I love going to a hurtful view of God, then I can be really grieved, and that hurts.

So that’s the theology side. There are some theological moves that are so destructive and so dishonoring to God and so close to the center that we should be deeply grieved and angered by them.

On the other hand, there are all kinds of divisions. If two of my elders hated each other—I mean, if they were saying ugly things about each other and doing wicked things, that would emotionally probably take me down deeper than most of these theological things.

I love our elder fellowship. I was meeting with the elders last night until 11 o’clock, and I came home just saying, “I love these guys!” Thirty guys sitting around a table, one heart, one mind, pulling together for the good of the church is the joy of my life. It has been for 30 years. If that broke at Bethlehem and the thing became war and anger and hurtful speech, probably emotionally I would be way more undone than by theological issues.

So what can you say? There are some kinds of disunity that are small and don’t move me. Other kinds that are deep, immediate, personal, and heart-wrenching. So in any given case I would have to ask, “What is the theological issue? and What is the kind of division? And then I’ll tell you which bothers or hurts or grieves me more.”

When we look at issues of theology and the things we divide over, do we always consider the degree of the offense or the root of the theological divide?

Sometimes, although not always, what we consider bad theology is due to preference. For example, I think the Arminian view of salvation is bad theology. But I still believe those who holds to this theological position are brothers & sisters in Christ. However, if one considers the crucifixion to be an act of “divine child abuse,” that is a grievous error worthy of separation. If someone denies the sufficiency of Scripture, again, there are grounds for division.

Similarly the things we divide over often come down to preference. Style of music. Dress. Bible translation (e.g. KJV only)… These are not things that need to cause division.

I read a few blogs on a regular basis, and, in general, the ones I like are excellent. Insightful, interesting, engaging content. Tim Challies, Justin Taylor, Abraham Piper, Mike Anderson & The Resurgence, the whole team at Evangelical Village… All these guys and so many more do a wonderful job seeking to glorify Jesus through blogging, and for that, they should be commended.

However, I’ve recently seen a very ugly thing happening in commenting habits, that in no way reflects or glorifies Jesus; that being the pushing of agendas that have nothing at all to do with anything that’s being discussed.

Recently, I’ve seen several discussions on a variety of topics derailed into a pro-egalitarianism rant (or more accurately “anti-authority of any kind” rant) on points that had nothing to do with the issue. I’ve seen Christians come out of the woodwork declaring the author a heretic on a doctrinal issue that is a tertiary issue.

My point in addressing this is that it shows a disturbing lack of character in how Christians are engaging the “blogosphere” (I hate the web-speak, so please excuse the quotes).

Depending on the crowd you’re in, the mention of this name will either send someone into a blind rage or make them swoon like a teenage girl at a Jonas Brothers concert. He is one of the most polarizing figures within Evangelicalism today; a man whose influence, whether you like it or not, is growing by leaps and bounds every single day.

Recently a featured panelist on Nightline’s “Does Satan Exist” debate (as well as in a piece profiling him on another episode of the show), appearing briefly on D.L. Hughley’s show on CNN, profiled in the New York Times, and name-dropped as one of the key leaders of the resurgence of Calvinism, Driscoll is everywhere.

So, what is it about him that gets so many riled up? Why is it that, while being so polarizing, he ironically unites the extreme left and the extreme right together in their distaste for him? And why do so many people dig Driscoll?

What’s this about affiliate links?

Many product links on this site are affiliate links. This means if you click through and make a purchase, I receive a small percentage of the sale price. You probably knew this already, but I thought I'd do my part to help FTC agents get a good night's sleep.